Friday, April 25, 2025
Blog Page 1629

Travel Blog: Volcanoes in Indonesia

0

“But sir, it is a very long walk!”

“Don’t worry about, I’ll be fine!” I let off a charming and confident smile.  I turn down the offer of a lift in one of the guide’s mountain jeeps.  After all, what challenge could a little Indonesian volcano present? I do have experience of course; I’ve done Ben Nevis and the Scottish highlands; trekked halfway across the Andes; ascended the Alps, and bounded around the Lake District many a time, always back for happy hour.  The guidebook advises four hours to reach the summit to view the sunrise – three should be sufficient.  I pull by rucksack on, and set off up the both at a cracking pace, the guide gently shaking his head behind me.

I easily wave away the first motorcycle rider who passes and offers me a lift for a little less than 80p. The second one is harder, but still I wave him aside.  I remind myself that the first half hour of a walk is always the hardest. As I pause for breath, the crater wall of the volcano looms above me: a trail of jeep lights show the route to the top.  It’s a long way up.

The hill is unrelenting. I bend over, panting heavily, promising myself this will be my last break for a while. It won’t be.  The jeeps stream past, their occupants staring at me, alone on the road, like some curiosity.  For the sake of appearances, I take a few strides, waving cheerily at the jeep people. They seem unconvinced, so I double over wheezing again. I have realised, too late unfortunately, that my numerous mountaineering exploits happened, for the most part, over a year ago.  Perhaps I misremembered the ease of my previous attempts? Or maybe the year of university living, of proverbial port and cigars, has taken its toll. Yes, that would be it. I can just see the seventeen year old me bounding ahead, wind in his hair, laughing at my efforts.

I trudge steadily on. The water is gone. I reach what the guide described as ‘the hard bit’ (the previous two hours being ‘easy’). I clamber up a vertical rock face, then stumble, parched across the dirt above like some man lost in the desert.  “Horse mister?”, comes a voice from the darkness. I manage a breathless no. Another 100 metres “Horse? Very far to the top.” The horse salesman nods earnestly. My firm refusal manifests itself as a weak, wordless flop of the hand. A few hundred paces, another eternity of endless, aching, torturous pain.

“Horse?” Bent over double. The third temptation comes. I stand in breathless agony for a minute or so. Finally, one faltering foot goes in front of the other. I can’t even manage a refusal. I remind myself that this man (and his horse) don’t just won’t my money. They want my pride. Most of all, they want to take the immense moral superiority I hold over all those fucks who took the jeep the the top.

It’s been four hours. The first licks of sunrise are on the horizon.  Desperate not to miss the holy grail of the mountain, I redouble my efforts to a slow shuffle. I am kept going by the thought of the bar tonight – not only the cold beer, but the right to casually toss off “Oh no. I walked up.”, and enjoy the amazed glances ad adoring gazes of my fellow travellers.

“Angus?” I look up. Marie – an acquaintance from the day before.  “Hurry up! The sun’s coming up!” I look up at her expectant face. I stand tall, and stride up the last few metres like a conquering hero. A conquering hero whose left foot gives way on the last step, leaving him lying on his back, head lolling to one side, tongue out. Marie casually looks away. Finally, I find the strength to lift my head to see the view. Probably worth it.

Viewers for women

0

So, farewell then, London 2012. And what a fortnight of television it’s been. One of the best things is undoubtedly the chance to watch things one would never normally be able to see: thanks to the Olympics I’ve discovered a love of horses dancing to Disney music, men falling with style from great heights in tiny pants, and ping pong balls travelling so fast my eyes would struggle to keep up — let alone my hands. But of all these rare and strange pleasures, my favourite part has undoubtedly been the chance to see women’s sport being treated with the same respect and interest as men’s. The fact that this seemingly simple state of affairs is as rare as a British medal in the 100m, however, is rather a depressing thought.

Having earned Team GB their first medal at London 2012, cyclist Lizzie Armistead bravely took the opportunity to speak about the sexism women face in her sport, describing it as ‘quite overwhelming and very frustrating.’ When you take a look at the situation, it’s not hard to understand these sentiments.   

Although our male and female cyclists at the Olympics have been equally celebrated for their achievements, the women have arguably had a harder struggle to get there. Fellow Team GB cyclist Emma Pooley shared Armistead’s feelings, telling the Guardian earlier this year: ‘Women’s cycling really does have a problem. It’s not a lack of enthusiasm or willingness, it’s just the races aren’t televised for the most part so for sponsors it’s like night and day compared with men’s cycling. There is a lot of uncertainty every year over teams. You think you’ve got a contract then the team decide women’s racing is not of interest to main sponsors because it’s not visible.” There is no women’s equivalent to the Tour de France, for example, and Armistead and Pooley cannot benefit from the lucrative Sky sponsorship enjoyed by many of their GB teammates. Without TV there are no sponsors and without sponsors there is very little money.

It’s a familiar picture: this inequality between men’s and women’s sport is reflected across the board. A study by the Commission for the Future of Women’s Sports shows the extent of the broadcasters and sponsors failure to invest in women’s sport, claiming that, despite public interest being on the rise, sponsorship of women’s sport in the UK amounted to a miniscule 0.5% of the total market over the past 18 months, compared with the 61.1% that went men’s sport. 

Of course there’s the familiar argument that it’s a simple case of supply and demand: if the punters don’t want it, the broadcasters won’t show it. Well, for one thing, where was this argument when some bright spark decided the world hadn’t seen quite enough of Big Brother? And for another, when did the viewing public make this announcement? I certainly wasn’t consulted in the survey. Here, the Olympics is the fantastic exception that proves the rule: we love a medal winner regardless of gender and don’t value a gold medal any less because it’s hung over the top of a sports bra. If only the same could be said for the recognition of female athletes’ achievements during the other three years and 50 weeks of the cycle. Mens’ sports teams hugely dominate sports coverage during the rest of the calendar and their female equivalents barely get a look-in.

Perhaps it is simply the case that sports fans want to watch men play. Admittedly this does seem to be true of the sports nuts that I know (not that they have a lot of choice in the matter), but the huge amount of interest in female athletes over the past two weeks suggests that they are not exclusively interested in the exploits of players with penises. What’s more: the one thing that all the sports fans I know enjoy watching is winning. And guess what? The women win. A lot. It’s just that nobody seems to notice.  

The England women’s rugby team are reigning champions in the world cup, the RBS 6 Nations and the Nations Cup. They’ll soon be out to defend their Six Nations crown, attempting to retain it for a record-breaking seventh consecutive year. Meanwhile, the football team reached the quarter finals of the World Cup last year and the cricket team are reigning world champions, winning the latest world cup in Australia. All of which indicates that our sports media are cheating us out of many an excuse for drunken celebration, which is always a travesty in my opinion. But it also means we’re failing to celebrate the commitment and passion of some fantastic athletes. 

That passion is pretty well summed up for me in the example of England goalkeeper Rachel Brown. Brown has played for the England squad since 1997, but until last month she was also working full time as a teacher: going from work to the gym to training, then home in the early hours to finish her lesson plans. The choice to give up her job in order to focus on football full-time wasn’t an easy one, as she explained: ‘It was a tough decision because I’m getting married in a few months and we’ve obviously still got bills to pay, but I’m lucky I’ve got a supportive fiancé.’ 

The idea of a male international footballer agonising over whether to give up his day job is patently laughable — unless of course John Terry finds that £130,000 a week doesn’t quite cover his costs. The point is these women really compete for the love of it, and if we’re going to insist on sportspeople being ‘role models’ then they’d do a hell of a better job than most EPL players. None of them have slept with each other’s husbands or with prostitutes, there have been no incidences of racist abuse and they seem to be far more successful at keeping their feet — both literally and metaphorically — on the ground.

So why not more for women’s sport? It’d be a win for equality, for broadcasters missing out on a potentially lucrative market, for athletes who’d get the financial security they need to focus on their sport, and for viewers who might get to see a victory once in a while. 

And if Sky won’t have it, so much the better. Let’s get some sport back on the beeb where there’s a chance of some decent commentary into the bargain. Women’s MOTD fronted by Clare Balding? I’d watch that. And I don’t even like football. 

Special Oxford funding criticised

0

Oxford and Cambridge are currently allocated a total of £6.9 million a year for this task, in addition to funding which is available to all universities.

The report showed that some institutions thought that the current ‘institution-specific’ funding system “may be anti-competitive”, whilst others proposed alternative schemes for the money, such as channelling it into the student loan system, letting the markets decide appropriate levels of funding, or widening access.

Under the present scheme, Oxford receives £4.7 million and Cambridge £2.2 million a year, while the remainder of the funds are paid to 17 small-scale specialist colleges, such as music conservatoires. 

The criticism has led to fears that the current allocation could be abolished in future, a move supported by Bahram Bekhradnia, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, who argued in a recent interview with The Times Higher Education Magazine that “tutorial teaching provides no sort of justification” for continued financing, a view that echoed the findings of the HEFCE report which revealed a minority of those bodies questioned which held that the current system is seemingly designed to “maintain the status quo”.

But a spokeswoman from the University of Oxford defended the payments, announcing the university’s intention “to make a case for the continuation of this funding” and highlighting that the fund only “in part contributes to the cost of the tutorial system”.

The same is true for the University of Cambridge, where a recent internal report warned that the cost of individual interviews and the tutorial system “continues to rise” and even predicted that their continuation across the university as a whole may not be sustainable.

Such arguments may not hold much traction with many of the contributors to the HEFCE report, some of whom warned “that that the review should not maintain the status quo” and claimed that the “negative impact on an institution of removal of such funding should not be sufficient justification for its continuation”.

The tutorial system itself was criticised, with one submission claiming “that institutions should not be compensated for characteristics of delivery or organisation which are not cost effective”.

Criticism also focused on a lack of transparency and efficiency in how the funds are allocated are spent, and the large endowments possessed by many of its beneficiaries.

HEFCE is a quango responsible for allocating public funds to higher education providers. Its funding role is likely to be reduced as part of the government’s reform of higher education funding, which includes a greater proportion of funding coming directly from higher tuition fees.

Lon-DONE 2012

0

The Olympics are over, and I think I might actually miss them. Despite spending most of July working out if I could walk to work and presuming that public transport during them would be only marginally preferable to getting to work in a massive sauna that you had to queue for, it actually seems like they were a pretty big success. I’m going to be sad to see them go, in fact I’d go as far to say that they changed my life for the better while they were on. I’m still not entirely sure they were worth £10 billion, but I’d say at least £7-8 billion, and I’m not even accounting for the legacy or sustainability prospects.

 

I’m not a particularly big fan of sport in general, either playing or watching. I find playing it embarrassing (hand-eye co-ordination isn’t one of my strong points) and watching it tedious. The Olympics, however, is another matter. I think it’s probably because we started picking up medals and then the possibility of ‘winning (or at least coming third on Gold medals, but that’s basically winning in my eyes) seemed so realistic, but I’ve found myself feeling disappointed when that medal that was in the bag falls through our (that’s right, our, that’s how into it I’ve got) fingers and elated when we a surprise gold comes through. That’s at least slightly better than my usual feeling of pure apathy where sport is concerned.

 

Actually caring also makes it easier to fit in with the rest of society, especially as I’m currently on an internship and desperate for any sort of common ground/conversation starter now that my usual anecdotes of crew dates, tutes and general ‘banter’ have been rendered inappropriate. The first four weeks passed and, I’ll admit it, I was struggling. A particularly awkward example of this was when the guy next to me asked if I’d seen the cricket score. I hadn’t. Even if I had I probably wouldn’t have understood it, caring as much about the England cricket team as I imagine he did about the Hungarian lower leagues of Handball (his loss in my opinion, those games can really get the blood pumping). But luckily, thanks to BBC livetext’s commentary and the fact that nobody knows what’s going on in most of the sports anyway/the sports are judged on how they look, I’m a veritable expert. Usain Bolt? Yeah, he’s pretty fast. Tom Daley? Has some excellent dives but sometimes his finish can be off. The North Korean man who lifted 3x his own body weight? Strong. I’ve already cleared space in my schedule for when I’m asked to commentate.

 

It’s also just so watchable, and there’s so many things going on through the day that it’s pretty hard to get bored of it. I have quite a short attention span and constantly need something to occupy me during the day, normally something that has an address that begins with ‘www.’. Any other time of year I’d flick between facebook, bbc news, google news (I like to keep up to date with current affairs), the daily mail website (all current affairs and no celeb gossip makes matt a dull boy) and Wikipedia. Now I spend at least 4% less time on each of these websites and that’s presuming I split my time equally between them and the Olympics. It’s probably at least 5%, maybe even 6. There’s always some obscure medal hope that, if there’s any vague chance of a medal, will leave me refreshing if live text doesn’t refresh fast enough. Sometimes even that isn’t enough, the ‘Jump-Off’ took a whole hour out of my day…

Could you become a UK citizen?

0

I’m not being flippant, because I couldn’t. Here, take Theresa May’s test.

I got 50%, scraping a third. To pass you need a solid first, 75%. So what conclusion should I draw? That I’m terrifically ignorant of Shakespeare, electoral law and the welfare system? Probably. But should that disqualify me, as it does for so many aspirant citizens, from being British?

In 1991 a skinny Somali boy stepped off the plane with his father, wholly ignorant of the customs, rules and language of the country for which 21 years later he would win two Olympic gold medals. Draped in the Union flag, who could begrudge the awesome Mo Farah the respect that fellow patriots owe him?

Cultural assimilation and social integration do not require a sound knowledge of trivia. We used to have a more American attitude to immigrants; namely, that their costly and perilous journey to these shores itself demonstrated a willingness to become British.  Later, amidst fears that Enoch Powell’s infamous warning would prove prophetic, the government would limit mass immigration, a policy itself later reversed by New Labour’s acquiescence to EU expansion.

Mo, who Cherwell interviewed in April, had a British father, so his path to the UK was assured. But there are thousands like him – many from Commonwealth countries with good English skills – who are denied the citizenship they fully deserve and we need. At its most acute hospitals now lack the qualified doctors who are ready and willing to work here. Less tangibly but no less seriously, we are losing out on the talent of thousands of tomorrow’s business, cultural and sports stars who will not get into the UK under the Home Secretary’s rules.

There is indeed ‘good’ immigration and ‘bad’ immigration, but a general knowledge test is hopeless at distinguishing the two. The ‘points’ system adopted by the last government, which prioritises skilled workers, is closer to the mark but it neglects the ability of ‘unskilled’ workers to strive and pursue self-improvement in their adopted country. This is especially true considering they do not impose a burden on public services and do not push down wages.

The truth is that good citizenship – and this applies to us all – rests on hard work, community identification and a willingness to ‘muck in’, to make sacrifices. How on earth do you devise a test for all of that? Except winning a gold medal, obviously. 

Review: Ted

0

As a long-time Family Guy fan, one might expect that I would approach this film with excitement, but this was not exactly the case. I think most would agree that in recent years the show has dipped in quality, becoming more and more cynical and predictable. It often felt that the series writers, including creator Seth MacFarlane, were uninterested, perhaps had moved on to want different projects. When I went to see Ted in the cinema, I was proven right.

Thank goodness for that.

Ted is a great return to form for director MacFarlane after years of middling TV work, delivering a solid (albeit reasonably predictable) tale of a man struggling to become an adult and leave his juvenilia behind. As represented by his magic, sentient pot-smoking teddy-bear. Yes, in this film MacFarlane does not stray far away from his tried and tested formula.  There’s a pigheaded (male) lead character supported by a zany talking creature of some kind, indulging in on-the-edge offensive banter to a backdrop of 1980s pop culture gags. Certainly, there are few surprises in Ted, at least on the surface.

But what raises this film above the level of Macfarlane’s more recent TV entries is the absence of cynicism and slight laziness that has pervaded his work, replaced instead by characters who are less comically monstrous than they are misguided, attempting to deal with the tough choices of growing up and moving on from their past. Usually, when comedy makes the transition from TV to film, I find that injections of sentiment undermine the efficacy of the humour (take the slightly neutered Inbetweeners big-screen entry), but in Ted it somewhat validates the coarser, on-the-line moments, and adds some much-needed heart to the usual schtick.

This is by no means a perfect film; the conclusion is a little woolly, and a lot of the characters seem underwritten, particularly a sad underuse of the hugely talented Joel McHale, and an unforgiving wet-blanket role foisted on Mila Kunis. And yes, it is a similar to McFarlane’s TV shows. This will not convert any naysayers. But it is a good step forward for a first-time director, and above all a funny film. If MacFarlane is moving on from TV, I’m glad he’s at least travelling in the right direction.

THREE AND A HALF STARS

Young, Bright and Full of Shite

0

Another week, another bashing of Oxford in the national media. No doubt a lot of you watched the beeb’s Young Bright and on the Right, nose pressed up against the screen in case you were somehow unwittingly caught in a background shot. This wasn’t bad publicity, not for Oxford nor for Joe Cook who, unlike his cringingly, pathologically awkward Cambridge equivalent, actually came across as, if not likeable, at least sympathetic and well-intentioned, which is not bad for an aspirant Tory politician. It was of course horrible publicity for OCA as a whole whose image – sometimes, though not always accurate – of affected Etonian drawls, of 1930s fancy dress and aloof snobbery, has been tarnished once again.

The program may have examined this peculiar little world, but it never tried to explain why on earth it should actually exist: after all, the Tory party has been in power for most of the past century, it represents a vast chunk of British political opinion, and a perfectly valid one. In most universities the Conservative association is a political discussion and campaigning group of a similar stature and size to the Labour club. So it isn’t immediately clear why its main organisation in this university should resemble a massive game of let’s-all-pretend-to-be-30s-aristocrats.

In part the problem is self-fulfilling. Perhaps as a (very loose) part of the pinko, lefty Oxford media establishment my impression has been skewed, but amongst most of the people I know admitting you are an active member of OCA is like admitting you sell crack to five year old orphans: deeply unfashionable. Involvement may lose you friends but you’ll certainly keep your virginity. This paper and its rival (the FoxSpew? CocksGoo? Something like that) have certainly contributed to this with our relentless attacks on the club.. This antagonism  undoubtedly takes much of the responsibility for OCA’s current state because it means the only people willing to join are those who do not care what the rest of the university thinks of them: the very brave and the very isolated, both of whom tend to come across as odd and maladjusted. And, if it is OCA against the world anyway then why should they bend to better fit what their enemies consider is acceptable? Like the rejected fourth son in the attic we have refused to engage with OCA and so they have gone a bit kooky.

But the student news gets all het up about a lot of things, and normally the subjects of their (our?) scorn are quick to recover, it is unclear why OCA’s reputation should be so much more fragile. It seems there must be some other factor more inherent to this university that contributes to this OCA-bashing.

Whereas YB&otR may have focused on two working-class lads with very conservative views, I, along with a disproportionately large number of people in this university are the converse: private/grammar school kids on the left. Racked with liberal guilt at our privileged secondary education and our perhaps undeserved places at this heinously elitist institution we feel we desperately have to prove our left wing credentials. We rant about the right and mock OCA, desperate not to appear posh. I recall one fresher responding to an inquiry about where he went to school: “I went to a school in Winchester.” “You mean Winchester School?” “Yes.” he responded ashamedly. Joe himself summarised it well: when asked about his childhood shift to right he explained “I was struggling to determine my own life and to go against people’s expectations”. For many of us this works in the opposite direction, we want to go against all the poshbridge assumptions and prove we’re not all Tory toffs. Hence it is unsurprising that in this very self-consciously elitist university, this kind of ‘boo! Down with the Tory scum!’ rhetoric has marginalised the organised right into the peculiar little spectacle we saw paraded on BBC2.

This is a very unhealthy state of affairs. Oxford has long history of active student politics, and it is a shame that one side of the political spectrum should lack serious representation. We should engage the right in discussion not just bash them. We should adapt Cameron’s adage and hug a Harrodian, embrace an Etonian, cuddle a knight. If we remove some of the stigma of joining the Oxford Right perhaps it will grow into a reasonable force, or at least lose the compulsion to look mental on national television. And if you still need something to show that you’re really, really left wing, I don’t know: maybe write an article for the student media about how all drugs should be legal or something.

University receives government funding for life sciences

0

Oxford University’s medical sciences division has received a massive boost after being presented with a £750,000 government grant.

On 2nd August, David Willetts, minister for Universities and Science, announced at the British business embassy that Oxford University would be receiving the joint largest grant alongside the University of Dundee.

Along with a number of other grants ranging from £360,000-£750,000 for a selection of universities nationwide, Willetts believes that these grants will “drive growth and benefit patients. 

Announced by the Prime Minister David Cameron in December 2011 this ‘Confidence in Concept’ award forms part of the £180m programme for the government’s Life Sciences Strategy, known as the ‘Biomedical Catalyst’.

Managed by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the award is funding around 150 projects across 14 UK universities. With the aim of aiding new discoveries in laboratories transform into clinical development and testing, the grant has been welcomed by the University.

Professor Rodney Phillips, associate head of the medical sciences division at the University stated, “We are delighted to receive this large grant from the MRC. Oxford has one of the largest clinical trial portfolios in the UK…But it is not always easy for researchers to get the funding they need to see if their novel research could have promise as a new treatment for patients.”

Dr Wendy Ewart, deputy chief executive of the MRC, claims that, “The MRC’s Confidence in Concept awards will empower leading UK universities to respond quickly to emerging translational opportunities as they arise… helping to bridge the gap between discovery and development.”

The grant is only a small part of the government’s ‘Biomedical Catalyst’ funding which also includes awards by the Technology Strategy Board for eighteen small and medium sized businesses to explore the commercial opportunity that this new research could create.

David Willets argues that, “The Biomedical Catalyst will help bridge the so-called ‘valley of death’ that exists between when a bright new idea is developed in the laboratory and the point when a new drug or technology can be invested in by the market.”

The funding is under the control of the University and could be put towards a large number of projects including tests to aid the design of flu vaccines and the study of compounds to block enzymes related to the development of tumours.

Review: Brave

0

Pixar’s fairy tale of 10th century Scotland is a perplexing blend of two narratives; one in which the spirited princess Merida rejects her constrictive role in society and struggles to achieve sexual freedom, and one in which she encounters mystical forces  which transform her mother into a bear.

The trailer cunningly fails to mention the second narrative, probably because it is so weird and doesn’t fit with the Pixar way of doing things. In a Studio Ghibli film it would have worked. You’d have a sense of why the character has become a cat or a pig or whatever, and at the end of the film feel relatively clear about the character’s development. In Brave this is not the case, and furthermore the bear scenario sits oddly between comedy and tragedy; the mincing gait and effeminate posturing of the Queen-bear are too cruel and unsettling to get any laughs, while the whole thing is treated much too light-heartedly for it to have any emotional weight.

It’s nonetheless a fairy tale which is less offensive to women than most, and the absence of any kind of love story is a really nice touch. The only problem with questioning one aspect of the fairy tale ideology is that it really throws into relief all the other nasty assumptions at play. For example, the class thing. I’m baffled as to why, in 2012, we have the dopey, overweight servant ‘Maudy’ who continually goes into hysterics as she’s tormented by more quick-witted characters. And without a love story there’s no opportunity for the humble love interest to mess with some of the assumptions about class.

The film does at least look beautiful, with a constantly shifting mixture of very dark and very bright and colours reproducing the dramatic changeability of the Scottish landscape. Merida’s fantastically curly hair is fascinating to the extent that it tends to steal the show, upstaging everything from the forest scenery to Merida’s own face, which starts to look bland and inexpressive.

As with the unbalanced animation, the whole film is a bit wonky and muddled. It shuffles about a few motifs of the fairy tale without much enthusiasm, lacks the laughs of other Pixar films, and hangs off a bizarrely unclear and directionless plot. But it’s nonetheless worth seeing even if it doesn’t all fit together. It’s quite refreshing to watch something so unexpectedly strange and (perhaps unwittingly) dark. 

THREE STARS

Bodleian campaigns to digitise Shakespeare’s First Folio

0

Big names from the world of arts, culture and academia have lined up to support the Bodleian Libraries’ fundraising campaign to make the first collected edition of Shakespeare’s plays available online.

The campaign, Sprint for Shakespeare, was launched last week, and aims to raise £20,000 by public appeal in order to make the 1623 collection of plays, also known as the First Folio, obtainable online. With almost 1000 pages to digitise, the Sprint for Shakespeare target of £20,000 averages at £20 per page.

Once the project is completed, the volume will be available online in digital format at http://shakespeare.bodleian.ox.ac.uk, and will be accessible to anyone free of charge. Campaign leaders hope the website will become “a dynamic forum to celebrate Shakespeare” and “prepare for Oxford’s celebrations of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death in 2016”.

The First Folio included 36 of Shakespeare’s plays, published posthumously in an ambitious publishing project led by his fellow actors John Heminge and Henry Condell, many of which had not previously been published. Without it, there would have been no record of many of his most celebrated works, including Macbeth, Twelfth Night, and Measure for Measure. The Bodelian Libraries’ assert that “Quite simply, Shakespeare’s reputation in subsequent ages depends on this collection of his work.”

The launch of the campaign has received much notable support. Actress Vanessa Redgrave commented, “I am very happy to help the Bodleian Libraries raise funds so that the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays may be read and studied online; this will be a wonderful achievement.”

Stephen Fry has too publicly shared his enthusiasm for the project, noting, “First Folio as a phrase sounds so distant from our everyday lives, but this priceless and extraordinary collection of plays turned the world upside down (or should that be the right way up?) every bit as much as Newton was to do nearly 60 or so years later.

“The works of Shakespeare, now as much as ever, tell us what it is to be alive. The ambiguity, doubt, puzzlement, pain, madness and hilarity of existence had never been expressed so well and to this day never has. To bring the First Folio, the great authoritative publication, to everyone in the world via digitisation is as noble and magnificent a project as can be imagined and I whole-heartedly support the Bodleian and all those endorsing this marvellous enterprise.”

Sir Peter Hall, Founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company, added, “The digitization of the Bodleian copy of Shakespeare’s First Folio is a project of huge importance.  It will provide an unrivalled opportunity for textual study not only for actors, directors and other theatre practitioners and their academic colleagues, but also for audiences whose love of the plays has remained undiminished over the centuries.”

Dr Sarah Thomas, Bodley’s Librarian said: ‘The Bodleian copy of the First Folio has a special place in the Library’s history.  Its pages are not only evidence of Shakespeare’s literary genius but are also a testimony of how the Bodleian built its collections over time.”

Shakespeare specialist Professor Jonathan Bate of Worcester College has also expressed his support for the campaign, calling the First Folio “the most important secular book in the history of the western world”.

He continued, “Every copy is a treasure of huge importance and, fascinatingly, because of the printing process in Shakespeare’s time, every copy has its own unique characteristics. There was a time when only advanced scholars, and people able to travel to the great libraries, had the opportunity to view the key copies of the Folio, but now the Internet has the capacity to make them available to everyone — the digitization of the Bodleian copy, with its strange and eventful history, is a great project.’

English third-year Hattie Soper added, “I think the endeavour is very worthwhile and the digitised First Folio will become a much-loved resource. As a facsimile it’s all the more precious because it’s relatively hard to come across Shakespeare’s plays in the original language. The vast majority of editions are modern translations, making the project particularly fresh and exciting.”